Tuesday, June 03, 2014

Now you're outraged by negotiations with terrorists? Now?

The Republican politicians, the Democratic politicans, the press, they're all full of it.

Michael Crowley (Time magazine) writes:The GOP has several complaints about the controversial deal the Obama Administration negotiated with the Afghan Taliban for the release of Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl.
Topping the list is the idea that President Barack Obama has violated a
sacred rule: Never talk to terrorists. “It has long been America’s
unwavering, bipartisan policy not to negotiate with terrorists,
especially for the exchange of hostages,” argues
George W. Bush’s former U.N. Ambassador, John Bolton. “By trading to
release hostages, we are invariably putting a price on the heads of
other Americans.” Florida Republican Sen. Marco Rubio agrees, warning that the deal “could encourage future terrorist kidnappings of Americans.”

It
may be a political maxim that we don’t talk to terrorists. But that’s
not always how it works in practice. The Carter administration [. . .]

The Taliban captured Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl nearly five years ago, and finally freed him Saturday.That
was the good news. The bad news is that the U.S. government agreed to
release five top Taliban officials from the prison at Guantanamo Bay in
exchange for Bergdahl’s freedom. The five will be held by Qatar for a
year.

If someone has serious concerns about the above, they should address the topic. But I find the sudden concern on the part of politicians and the press more than a little hypocritical.

5 terrorists or 'terrorists' were released to secure the release of 1 living American and this is outrageous?

Where was the outrage when Barack released the killers of American troops and British troops?

What American's release did that secure?

None.

It resulted in the release of corpses (British corpses) and 1 British citizen (Peter Moore).

The US government had the leaders of the League of Righteous in custody. The US government entered into negotiations with the organization -- labeled a terrorist organization by many -- to broker the release.

And so few wanted to discuss it in real time. Let's drop back to the June 9, 2009 snapshot with the realization that some who looked the other way in real time will now be outraged:

This morning the New York Times' Alissa J. Rubin and Michael Gordon offered "U.S. Frees Suspect in Killing of 5 G.I.'s." Martin Chulov (Guardian) covered the same story, Kim Gamel (AP) reported on it, BBC offered "Kidnap hope after Shia's handover" and Deborah Haynes contributed "Hope for British hostages in Iraq after release of Shia militant" (Times
of London). The basics of the story are this. 5 British citizens have
been hostages since May 29, 2007. The US military had in their custody
Laith al-Khazali. He is a member of Asa'ib al-Haq. He is also accused
of murdering five US troops. The US military released him and allegedly
did so because his organization was not going to release any of the
five British hostages until he was released. This is a big story and
the US military is attempting to state this is just diplomacy, has
nothing to do with the British hostages and, besides, they just released
him to Iraq. Sami al-askari told the New York Times, "This is a very
sensitive topic because you know the position that the Iraqi
government, the U.S. and British governments, and all the governments
do not accept the idea of exchanging hostages for prisoners. So we put
it in another format, and we told them that if they want to participate
in the political process they cannot do so while they are holding
hostages. And we mentioned to the American side that they cannot join
the political process and release their hostages while their leaders are
behind bars or imprisoned." In other words, a prisoner was traded for
hostages and they attempted to not only make the trade but to lie to
people about it. At the US State Dept, the tired and bored reporters
were unable to even broach the subject. Poor declawed tabbies. Pentagon
reporters did press the issue and got the standard line from the
department's spokesperson, Bryan Whitman, that the US handed the
prisoner to Iraq, the US didn't hand him over to any organization --
terrorist or otherwise. What Iraq did, Whitman wanted the press to know,
was what Iraq did. A complete lie that really insults the intelligence
of the American people. CNN reminds the five US soldiers killed "were:
Capt. Brian S. Freeman, 31, of Temecula, California; 1st Lt. Jacob N.
Fritz, 25, of Verdon, Nebraska; Spc. Johnathan B. Chism, 22, of
Gonzales, Louisiana; Pfc. Shawn P. Falter, 25, of Cortland, New York;
and Pfc. Johnathon M. Millican, 20, of Trafford, Alabama." Those are
the five from January 2007 that al-Khazali and his brother Qais
al-Khazali are supposed to be responsible for the deaths of. Qassim Abdul-Zahra and Robert H. Reid (AP) states
that Jonathan B. Chism's father Danny Chism is outraged over the
release and has declared, "They freed them? The American military did?
Somebody needs to answer for it."

Danny Chism's son was murdered by this group and he thought, "Somebody needs to answer for it."

No one ever did.

We speak to a lot of different groups. If the group is a veterans group or veterans families' group, they know about the deal.

It was only the rest of America that chose to look the other way.

Not
only did Barry betray the fallen, he demonstrated yet again no one
should trust him at the adult table by himself. His 'big' deal resulted
in only one living British citizen released. Three corpses were
released.

The fifth kidnapped victim?

Though Barry's
'big' deal was supposed to free all five, the League, two years later, was insisting they wanted a new deal (and figured Barack was just the pushover
to give it to them?). Al Mada reported they have issued a statement where they savage the US government for
not honoring -- and quickly honoring -- the agreement made with them.

After the League of Righteous squeezed out additional concessions from Barack, they finally released the corpse of Alan McMenemy.

I'm not saying you should be outraged or shouldn't be outraged by Barack's recent negotiations.

I am saying that in this year's negotiations, an American citizen was released and that's much more than you can say about Barack's 2009 negotiation.

The killers of American troops were in US custody and they were supposed to be tried. That didn't happen.

Now this group is Nouri's political ally, he arms them and they kill Sunnis for him.

About Me

We do not open attachments. Stop e-mailing them. Threats and abusive e-mail are not covered by any privacy rule. This isn't to the reporters at a certain paper (keep 'em coming, they are funny). This is for the likes of failed comics who think they can threaten via e-mails and then whine, "E-mails are supposed to be private." E-mail threats will be turned over to the FBI and they will be noted here with the names and anything I feel like quoting.
This also applies to anyone writing to complain about a friend of mine. That's not why the public account exists.